Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

Some have mentioned that they would like a larger field of view. I wonder if these are limited due to the 720p resolution and pixel structure becoming visible. Would be cool once a 1080p version comes out that you can set the field of view much like choosing how close you want to sit to your projector screen. A complete field of view might be cool for gaming. Not so much for movies though.

False, but obviously not the topic of this thread. Start a new one if you want.

Did you even read the link I posted? Most Sony headphones have a considerable drop-off below 100Hz and do miserably with the square-wave tests. Compare their results to something like the Audeze LCD-2.

Relevant, as these have built in headphones which may not be removable, or let you fit high quality IEMs under them comfortably. (depends how tight the fit is)

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch

You think there might be multiple 720p HMD/EVF OLED panel factories on the planet?!

There are several companies manufacturing OLED panels right now, and Zeiss have been showing off prototypes for this longer than Sony have.

Even if the panels are the same, the optics will be entirely different (Zeiss' goals are completely different than Sony's) and signal processing is half the picture when it comes to image quality.

I have long considered Sharp's LCD technology to be bad, but when Sony used their panels last year, why opinion completely changed.

The Cinemizer glasses are not going to have features like super bit mapping, and will probably not have accurate color reproduction either. Depends what the native gamut for a white OLED display is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch

Not me. Preliminary specs may not be accurate for the Zeiss, but indeed their FOV, by my math, is 31 degrees whereas Sony is about 45. So, yes the optics may not be the same, however depending on if this chip suffers from SDE or FPN, the smaller Zeiss image could be an advantage. A 31 degree image is still within SMPTE and THX guidelines as well as big enough to resolve a 720p image down to the individual pixel.

FOV is not the important factor herethe Zeiss glasses create a 45" image viewed from 2m away. The Sony glasses recreate a large image from a good distance. It's the distance that is the exciting thing about this HMD. Sony aren't just trying to create a portable HDTV, they're trying to create a virtual cinema.

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch

I can tell you that manufacturers' common claim "Our product even works just fine for people wearing glasses!" is often a lie, so the diopter adjustments on the Zeiss appeal to me.

I was not aware that the current version used OLED, are you sure? They have been showing a prototype for a year or two now. As I've said already though, the Cinemizer is the best portable experience. It won't compare to the HMZ-T1 for at-home viewing.

The tiny screens that sit a fraction of an inch from your eyeballs have been upgraded to OLED, which should make them bright and lovely as they pummel your rods and cones, but sadly they're still stuck in VGA land -- 640 x 480 is not a lot of pixels these days.

Enjoying Nissan Leaf as the primary car for over 6 months : MyNissanLeaf.com

Those images are of the Cinemizer OLED, not the Cinemizer Plus, which I don't believe uses OLED panels. I think Zeiss basically held the product back and changed it at the last minute, to the current version which uses 720p OLED panels - it was supposed to be out last xmas, not this xmas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogone

That'll change in a hurry...Think I'll wait for the portable model...

We'll see. I don't know that portability is Sony's goal, even if it's only pulling 15W. The optics would have to change to bring the viewing distance and image size down (if not, I can't see them being much thinner) and the image processing would probably have to be downgraded. My guess would be no super bit mapping, possibly no color management (if necessary) and it would maybe lose the surround sound processing.

Perhaps long-term, but I'm not sure that's the sort of change you would see from a second revision. I think they'd be more focused on weight reduction, possibly improving the optics (perhaps just to make the image bigger) and various other tweaks from user feedback if it does well enough. They have been really great at taking user feedback from their NEX cameras lately, far better than a company Sony's size usually is.

Normally camera improvements are fairly incremental, but as someone that bought a NEX-5 last year when they came out, I'm already thinking about upgrading to the new one as a result of the changes they've made due to user feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by p_sousa

well is a portable device IMO.
i mean for example you can put the glasses and the other stuff on a bag or in a case and use them in a vacation house xD

It's a portable device in that regard, but you won't be using it on the flight over to your vacation home, or on the train on a commute to work etc. I think that's what people mean when they say portable.

The Cinemizer OLED is portable, but there are clear compromises they've had to make to it compared to the HMZ-T1 as a result. It's not like you're comparing two TVs together, it's like comparing a television to a portable DVD player. It might be the best portable DVD player ever, and great on a journey, but it's not the same thing as a TV when you're sitting at home to watch a film.

The title to this thread is absurd...This toy in no way shape or form will make an awesome home theater obsolete...At best, when it's eventually made portable, it will be a nice toy to use during travel or excercise. Let's all get serious here...

The title to this thread is absurd...This toy in no way shape or form will make an awesome home theater obsolete...At best, when it's eventually made portable, it will be a nice toy to use during travel or excercise. Let's all get serious here...

It will never replace projectors as a social viewing experience, but if they get it right, I have no interest in a projector any more.

Large image size

Works in any room.

Works in the daytime

No motion blur (LCD/LCoS is pretty bad)

No panel misconvergence (3 chip is so bad)

No heat & noise.

No bulbs to replace, filters to clean.

No rainbows

Much higher contrast than a projector

Perfect 3D: zero crosstalk, full brightness

Power consumption an order of magnitude lower than a projector.

Cost a fraction of a good projector setup.

No flicker. (my old SXRD flickered subtly, as did my DLPs)

No dynamic iris

720p resolution that's perfect for 1:1 mapped gaming.
I realise this is a downside for most people, but there are no high-end 720p screens for gaming on, and 3D gaming is limited to 720p due to the HDMI 1.4 spec.

And as far as audio is concerned, I've had 5.1 setups before, and I personally prefer the listening experience from a pair of higher-end headphones. That's why I'm going to be rather disappointed if you either can't detach them and use your own, or at least fit in good IEMs under the existing ones.

I think debating whether its good or not based on theory is just filling up bandwidth with the usual garbage. Like anything, its an alternative to something else. We don't even know streets yet let alone official MSRP. Whether based on theory you will buy it is meaningless. Right now it is what it is and even now we really don't know what that is feature wise.

I remember when the first TV glasses came out and the sales through the airplane store mags. Seeing those in real life left a lot to be desired. Preliminary reports indicates this is much better and I suspect it might be a useful viewing alternative. We shall see. I have early adoptoritis. If they were $2K, I would not do it. But at likely pricing I will take a stab and besides I will know a lot more and be able to use a pair less than 4 days from now. Anybody getting on the lists is not obligated in a anyway, just lets you get one at the beginning if reports are good and pricing is good for you.

agreed with all you've said .. and until we get some user hands on, much of the thread is garbage, IMO

Uncle Willie

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Did you even read the link I posted? Most Sony headphones have a considerable drop-off below 100Hz and do miserably with the square-wave tests.

Yes, I read the link and it confirmed what I wrote regarding specific models. You seem to have a weak understanding of what is and what isn't most important in headphone performance ["Oh no, the square wave test isn't square enough. Oh the humanity!"], but more importantly I find it disturbing that throughout this entire thread you have exhibited an evangelical fanboy attitude which likes to pigeon hole products and brands, not just headphones, as either "good" or "bad" (often based on company press releases, which obviously are not very objective sources, since neither the 720p Sony nor the 720p Zeiss have even hit the market yet), rather than judging each product on actual non-prototype units which obviously none of us have gotten our hands on yet, in non-trade show environments, to determine their relative strengths and weaknesses, as you ought to.

Please take a page out of Mark's book, especially his last sentence, here, I've underlined for emphasis:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark haflich

I think debating whether its good or not based on theory is just filling up bandwidth with the usual garbage...

I remember when the first TV glasses came out and the sales through the airplane store mags. Seeing those in real life left a lot to be desired. Preliminary reports indicates this is much better and I suspect it might be a useful viewing alternative. We shall see.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

Yes, I read the link and it confirmed what I wrote regarding specific models. You seem to have a weak understanding of what is and what isn't most important in headphone performance ["Oh no, the square wave test isn't square enough. Oh the humanity!"], but more importantly I find it disturbing that throughout this entire thread you have exhibited an evangelical fanboy attitude which likes to pigeon hole products and brands, not just headphones, as either "good" or "bad" (often based on company press releases, which obviously are not very objective sources, since neither the 720p Sony nor the 720p Zeiss have even hit the market), rather than judging each product on actual non-prototype units none of us have gotten our hands on, in non-trade show environments, to determine their relative strengths and weaknesses, as you ought to.

Please take a leaf out of Mark's book, especially his last sentence I've underlined for emphasis, here:

nail head hit ..

Uncle Willie

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

I do think that the post number 190 is accurate. My problem is about comments about whether one likes OLED or thinks it sucks and therefore invalidates the product. Some things can be concluded ewithout observation, say if the mother weighed 9 lbs, it would be too heavy but ultimate impressions as to whether the image looks good to someone will have to await the person viewing the thing. Then the relevance of that person's conclusion must be based on how good an observer that person is and his or her viewing priorities. Because someone likes it oir doesn';t isn't by itself useful, no matter the number of such people.

The title to this thread is absurd...This toy in no way shape or form will make an awesome home theater obsolete...At best, when it's eventually made portable, it will be a nice toy to use during travel or excercise. Let's all get serious here...

It is next to impossible to retitle a thread. The thread initiator can't even do it and I think he was being just a tad sarcastic. Not that I would ever ever make a sarcastic post.

I don't think many here believe the title to be serious or that the glasses can replace a HQ HT. However, they could be better than a LQ HT especially with bad viewing conditions, an old bulb, visible screen door, poor colors, whatever.

For what it is worth, the post plasy in this forum is much greater than in the sub $3K forum. For the few posts over there, there is considerable more negativity and dismissal.

Yes, I read the link and it confirmed what I wrote regarding specific models. You seem to have a weak understanding of what is and what isn't most important in headphone performance ["Oh no, the square wave test isn't square enough. Oh the humanity!"]

It's a very telling test for how the headphones perform, aside from just looking at the full frequency response. I have owned several of the higher-end headphones on that list and know how they sound. The measurements Tyll has taken (1, 2, 3) describe the sound as I would expect.

Because the measurements described what I was hearing with my current (and previous) headphones, I then purchased some based on his measurements and have not been disappointed, unlike subjective reviews at places like head-fi, or demoing a pair and finding that I don't like them once I've spent more time at home after buying them; Grado GS1000 being a good example of that.

The "industry standard" Yamaha NS10 found in recording studios is not a particularly accurate speaker, but it is colored in a way that is good for monitoring purposes. In a similar fashion, the Sony 7506 is not an amazingly accurate headphone (certainly not something I would want for HT use) but can be quite good for monitoring purposes. Their new Z1000 are nothing amazing either. Sony just doesn't make great high fidelity headphones in general, and I would not expect anything different from a device like this where the total cost is likely under $800, and the majority of that will not be going into the headphones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch

but more importantly I find it disturbing that throughout this entire thread you have exhibited an evangelical fanboy attitude which likes to pigeon hole products and brands, not just headphones, as either "good" or "bad" (often based on company press releases, which obviously are not very objective sources, since neither the 720p Sony nor the 720p Zeiss have even hit the market), rather than judging each product on actual non-prototype units none of us have gotten our hands on, in non-trade show environments, to determine their relative strengths and weaknesses, as you ought to.

I personally know people that have had access to these, and they loved them.
There are many previews out there from people who have tested previous HMDs, agreed that they were univerally terrible, and have come away loving this.

Sony is using the same technology for OLED viewfinders in three of their upcoming cameras, which have been extensively tested by the photographic community, and have been favourably compared to optical viewfinders by people who have lambasted the LCoS viewfinders used in other cameras, and photographers in general are rather critical of image quality.

I have seen Sony's other OLED displays in person, and they are amazing. (but small)

Furthermore, I am excited about a new product that is a potential game-changer.

Will they be perfect? No. I can already think of changes I'd like to see in a future revision. (but nothing that would stop me buying this)
Will everyone love them? No.

But I think there is a lot of potential here, it's a very exciting product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark haflich

I don't think many here believe the title to be serious or that the glasses can replace a HQ HT. However, they could be better than a LQ HT especially with bad viewing conditions, an old bulb, visible screen door, poor colors, whatever.

I hope people don't think I actually expect these to make projectors obsolete. There is still a definite market for them even if these were perfect. You'd never have guests over and all put on your headset to sit in isolation and watch a film.

But as someone whose HT setup is primarily for personal use, it could eliminate my need for a projector - or at least a high end projector, if the image quality is good enough, as my guests only see the size, not the image quality. They would comment if it looked bad, but once you get past that, they wouldn't notice/care.

If someone already has a good projector setup but is interested in 3D, this potentially avoids an expensive upgrade, and should give a better viewing experience. So far, I have been left unimpressed by any consumer 3D products, including my own 3DTV which never gets used for 3D now.

I almost agree. But I disagree re even if you have a single person HT, you can replace it with these. There are times I am sure that one won't want to wear glasses. Where one wants to be able to see and hear things in the room. To pat the dog, to grab the beer, to see the cigar and where the ashes go. One doesn't need anything related to HT, not essential but for many, regardless of how good the PQ of these glasses is, a HQ HT will still be needed. The sound field shaking the room and you. I know you agree and are not saying otherwise.

Oy. Good to see you objectively keeping an open mind, not stereotyping, and heeding my earlier warning......NOT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch

throughout this entire thread you have exhibited an evangelical fanboy attitude which likes to pigeon hole products and brands, not just headphones, as either "good" or "bad" ...rather than judging each product ... to determine their relative strengths and weaknesses, as you ought to.

And speaking of "not", I'm not really interested in your "words of wisdom" and buying advice, so feel free to pontificate about all your great decisions regarding headphone purchases, etc., to others, if you feel you must, but please, no longer address me about this off topic drivel, I have no interest in your views and simply wont go there.

Done.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

The title to this thread is absurd...This toy in no way shape or form will make an awesome home theater obsolete...At best, when it's eventually made portable, it will be a nice toy to use during travel or excercise. Let's all get serious here...

I agree, but if these glasses deliver, they will be an interesting alternative for a number of applications.

If your projector is primarily for social use, this is definitely not a replacement. When I had projectors, they were still used for personal use 99% of the time, maybe once or twice a month they would be used to watch a film with friends/family.

Still a con, even if watching by yourself. You would have to take your headset off to do anything in real life, with a projector you can still pick up the phone, look around, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

This is not a VR headset, it's for creating a personal cinema experience at home.

It's not a VR headset. But the lack of head-tracking is still a con, specially when you consider the price, it's not like putting head tracking on the headset would hinder it's OLED performance for other applications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

At $800 (or possibly less) this is cheap for the kind of image quality you should get from dual OLED displays. Nothing else should be able to compete when it comes to contrast, motion handling, gradation, 3D brightness and complete elimination of crosstalk. (all current 3DTV/Projector systems are fairly crap)

800 for 2 small OLED's is hardly a bargain. Sure it's cool, but it ain't no bargain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Perfect for games/3D. The current HDMI spec is 720p60 or 1080p24. Gaming needs to be done at 60fps for fluid motion, 1080p24 is unplayable. 720p is higher resolution than any of the passive 3D displays (540p) and active shutter displays are dim, flicker, exhibit lots of crosstalk and only send the image to one eye at a time.

Well, most of my gaming i do on my PC... so i already play 3d games at 1080p60, i can't imagine myself playing StarCraft II with anything less than 1080p resolution because the game uses small text boxes a lot, but 720p would be acceptable for lots of other games. and just about all console games at the moment. Bottomline, for a screen that is supposed to be this huge, 1080p would've been really nice. And yes, i realize this is because this is a new product that still has a long way to go, but it's still a good reason not to be as excited about it when a product is not mature enough. Making apologies doesn't make a con a pro, regardless of the reason. Remember, this thread is calming this makes projectors obsolete, so it's fair game to call the lack of 1080p a con.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

With all the fuss about cell phones and cancer etc. I don't think it would be in their best interests to introduce the product with a 60GHz wireless link. (and/or wireless power)

You realize you get more radiation from an incandescent light bulb than you would out of a WiGig device right? (WiGig only uses 1 watt!)
At 60Ghz radiowaves behave a lot more like light than low frequency radio anyway. This is not even a concern for the much lower frequency microwave oven "WiFi" and a 15 minute cell phone call gives you more radiation than years worth of WiFi.
And more importantly, there's no evidence one way or another that Cell phones cause cancer in the first place.
But if you're really that worried about radiation, i'd try going out at night only, the sun bathes you with it in a far more significant way.

When all is said and done, this would be a PERFECT product to have WiGig with, Add a Cellphone with WiGig and you could use this pretty much anywhere to watch HD video with. The timing would be perfect, since 2012 is going to be have more than a few WiGig capable devices.
For something that is as small as this, making it not so portable is a pretty significant con.

I think people still haven't realized just how awesome WiGig is going to be, once it becomes ubiquitous people are going to wonder why we ever put up with cables. Cell phones will be able to replace all of your set top boxes (at least for your video needs) a lot sooner than a lot of people think.

Just for the two panels, no bargain. But throw in everything else, a street discount, and it becomes a wow without breaking the bank for most. I want it now and I do not think the price is anywhere near a rip off or unaffordable.

I almost agree. But I disagree re even if you have a single person HT, you can replace it with these. There are times I am sure that one won't want to wear glasses. Where one wants to be able to see and hear things in the room. To pat the dog, to grab the beer, to see the cigar and where the ashes go. One doesn't need anything related to HT, not essential but for many, regardless of how good the PQ of these glasses is, a HQ HT will still be needed. The sound field shaking the room and you. I know you agree and are not saying otherwise.

That was my point earlier regarding these replacing an HT, but I would think that adding a subwoofer/subwoofers to the system would be an easy thing to do.

800 for 2 small OLED's is hardly a bargain. Sure it's cool, but it ain't no bargain.

And yet people spend thousands on boxes with three small(er) SXRD or DLP chips and a lightbulb in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamus

Well, most of my gaming i do on my PC... so i already play 3d games at 1080p60, i can't imagine myself playing StarCraft II with anything less than 1080p resolution because the game uses small text boxes a lot, but 720p would be acceptable for lots of other games.

There are no HT-class 3D Vision display devices, and none of the big manufacturers have adopted it.

Also, at lower resolutions, the text will be bigger. It's because you're playing at 1080p that the text is small.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamus

You realize you get more radiation from an incandescent light bulb than you would out of a WiGig device right? (WiGig only uses 1 watt!)

...

I am not personally concerned, but the general public perception of putting something using 60GHz wireless on your head may not be so favourable, and not a good idea for (essentially) launching a first-generation product.

And yet people spend thousands on boxes with three small(er) SXRD or DLP chips and a lightbulb in them.

There are no HT-class 3D Vision display devices, and none of the big manufacturers have adopted it.

Also, at lower resolutions, the text will be bigger. It's because you're playing at 1080p that the text is small.

I am not personally concerned, but the general public perception of putting something using 60GHz wireless on your head may not be so favourable, and not a good idea for (essentially) launching a first-generation product.

Ganmes like StarCraft / World of Warcraft have fixed sizes for all graphics including text, regardless of the resolution. So you're wrong about that.

As far as projections not being cheap, never said they were. They can get pretty expensive.

Which public are we talking about here? the same public that owns billions of smartphones?

if this gadget offer what say it offer...IMO 600€ is very cheap.
if the IQ is the same as others OLED screen this will beat any projector in the market.
i will wait for this before i buy a projector...if this glasses do what sony say i will not buy a projector for sure. but this 'if' is a BIG if...so i will wait for reviews and users feedback